Leopold Kohr

In The Breakdown of Nations, Kohr expands on his thought: to his mind, only small states can be true democracies, as only they can provide every citizen a possibility to directly influence the government. Any economic issues are always tractable and manageable, people are free of governmental and social pressures, and culture can flourish. Constant conflicts and warfare that have been omnipresent and ever recurrent in the human history have led many to believe that the reason for constant conflict lies not in any ideology, culture or leadership, but in the human nature itself. Kohr notes that the role of main belligerent in geopolitics switched constantly from one state to another, and if it is human nature to invade and conquer, even destroying the hostile nation will result only in a different one filling that role.[11]

After Germany's defeat and its containment following World War II, the belligerent nation ostensibly turned into a peaceful one, and Russia came to being identified as the chief aggressor in Europe instead. Kohr argues that the belligerence of Russia lies in its size by giving it so much power that it can no longer be checked.[12]

Pamí Hernández notes that Kohr abandoned the traditional foci on ideology, education, economic system, evil leadership and even Marx's mode of production in favour of size of society, which, for Kohr, is the source of modern conflict. Kohr applies his theory to specific economic problems such as declining living standards, economic unification and business cycles and focusing on social aspects, as opposed to Marx's economoic focus. Kohr argues that Marx's "changing mode of production" as vehicle of history should be replaced with "changing size of society" instead as social norms desired by Marx such as just price, fair wage and gift culture as well his respect for accomplishments, solidarity and mutual aid are found not in modes of economy but rather in life in small communities.[13]

Kohr argues that instead of considering values such as uniformity and socialism the leveling effects of mass production, they should be seen as consequences of large societies and the levelling effect of great multitudes. Once growing societies expand so much that they cannot be self-sustainable, they "produce the equalizing, materialistic, semi-pagan, inventive climate of which the machine mode of production is not cause but consequence".[14] Kohr explains that a profit-seeking capitalist will serve society well on the basis of enlightened self-interest: bad service would not be profitable and so it is in the capitalist's self-interest to be altruistic.

However, the capitalist will stop being altruistic and start exploiting others if he "finds the opportunity of getting away with conspiracy against his fellow men", which a large society allows. Here Kohr names large companies as an example: only they can get away with abuses and exploits, and only an even larger power could sustain them such as the government.[15]

As Borrás-Alomar observes, Kohr draws a correlation between a size of the state and its power and argues that the "bigness" that results proportionately increases risk of wars and destruction while providing no positives. He focuses on Europe and analyses its history under his theory, concluding that large states must be dismentaled into natural small nations in order to preserve peace.[16] Even if pacifism is deeply entrenched in a country's traditions, war is still inevitable once certain power conditions are met since it is caused by accumulation of great power, which can be only accumulated by large, "outgrown" social groups. Those groups must this be cut down to size.[16] Outgrown "social organisms" can cause misery either internally, such as large cities (anomie), or externally by the great powers.

For Kohr, uniting the world will not help, and the great powers must be cut to a size that makes it impossible for them to cause harm anymore. Therefore, Kohr believes that humanity must turn towards disunion rather than union.[17][16] Kohr states that a disunited world would do away with territorial disputes and conflicts since cultures that currently demand autonomy will receive it, and disputed territories such as Alsace could become autonomous or sovereign instead.[18]

Kohr goes on to argue that large states will inevitably drift apart from democracy by arguing that Napoleon, Caesar and Stalin all came to power at the "very moment when republicanism and democracy seemed to have reached a pinnacle of development". While small state is internally democratic and its government has to serve the individual, large states have no way or obligation to do so since individuals lose value, and "democratic diversity" is replaced with "totalitarian uniformity", with individuals being pressured to assimilate into the majority in every way.[19]

Kohr states that a great power must be either fully republican or monarchist, fully socialist or capitalist, in its entire nature and expanse. Everyone within that state must accept thar one system with no compromises available, even if half of the population could be opposed to it, which for Kohr shows the totalitarianism of "bigness". Instead of adapting to multitude of individual desires, the individual is forced to adapt to the desires of the state instead.[20] He then states that large empires usurp academic development only because the peak of human progress was achieved before the times of worldwide great powers. He argues that the legacy of large states is one of totalitarianism and war instead. For him, the tiny pre-unification statelets were responsible for both the technological and the cultural progress, which the empires that succeeded try to claim as their own.[21]

Kohr also discusses the problem of cultural heritage and cultural assimilation. According to him, culture is a product of individuals, and since individual cannot prosper under a large power, neither can culture. He describes democracy as a "system of divisions, factions, and small-group balances", which slowly wither away under internal consolidation of a large state and with it the ability for cultural and intellectual flourishment.[22]

According to him, capitalism was flourished in its early stages only because od its small size. Every enterprise was small and thus the principle of economic competition was perfectly preserved.[23] Kohr laments globalization and warns that the world of large states and unions will inevitably lead to a uniform world, as anything unique, especially cultures and languages, will slowly wither away:

We may race up and down the entire North American continent and see nothing but Main Street all over again, filled with the same kind of people, following the same kind of business, reading the same kind of funnies and columnists, sharing the same movie stars, the same thoughts, the same laws, the same morals, the same convictions. This is why, if we want to read really exiciting adventure stories nowadays, we have to fall back on Homer. If in several European vast-area states such as Italy, France, or Germany, so many exciting though rapidly dwindling differences are still experienced on relatively short journeys, it is because the medieval small-state diversity has left so lasting an imprint that no unifying process has as yet been able to wipe it out...[24]

Kohr also defends the Holy Roman Empire by stating that its extensive decentralization and division into tiny states was the reason for its success, rather than its failure, by making the state easy to govern. No single kingdom or duchy coule ever grow stronger than the central government. The main reason for the downfall of the empire was that the balance was destroyed by the rise of great powers within it, Prussia and Austria, which then battled for control and divided the entire empire into their spheres of influence.[25] Kohr calls contemporary nations artificial and considers them an involuntary mixture "of more or less unwilling little tribes". He describes every contemporary large European power as rife with separatist or regional undercurrents, and names Scottish separatist movement and Bavarian attempt to become independent in 1945 as examples of such currents.[26]

In the afterword of The Breakdown of Nations, Kohr laments that his vision might never be realized as the great powers would never give up their power and balkanize voluntarily. He predicts that the unity of the Western world will be realised by "by every Frenchman, Dutchman, or Italian becoming an American". He notes that cultural assimilation does not destroy freedom in itself but renders it worthless.[27]